[apsurd]

Isn't software never being finished a unique trait of software and therefore intentionally used as a value?

I get that never-done software tends to justify shitty products.

But how would you suggest taking advantage of software's features vs do you really recommend building it like a bridge?

[jason_oster]

> You just cobble something together to sell. It need not be any good. As long as you can fool people into buying it, you can always try to make better versions later.

> So then you get these version numbers, even with decimals: version 2.6 or 2.7. That nonsense. While version 1 should have been the finished product.

E.W. Dijkstra

Translated from the original Dutch [1] [2].

Dijkstra was convinced that programming was a formal application of mathematics. If the program has a bug, the math is wrong. If the program is missing a feature, the math is incomplete.

Personally, I feel that building software like a bridge is the better path. You don't want the bridge patched with new supports and "stability improvements" every time another fatal design flaw is discovered any more than you want to update your OS and system libraries every time a new CVE is announced. These scenarios are both disruptive and costly. But somehow, we have been collectively tricked into accepting it as an unchangeable fact of software.

The advantage of software is that I can "replace the whole bridge" with a completely different design if I wish. Not merely patching an existing bridge in place, with whatever poor aesthetics and integrity problems that leaves behind.

[1] https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/video-audio/NoorderlichtVideo...

[2] https://youtu.be/-Uae9_pgZzE?si=twwh7k7cPKRB2gvJ&t=50

[0xbadcafebee]

You could keep whittling on a chair leg forever, but I don't think that's a value.

I think software is a material, like steel. And like steel, there are properties of software you can take advantage of to build in different ways. For example, its ability to be turing-incomplete, or stateless/immutable, formally verified, interpreted vs compiled, composeable vs fully integrated, distributed vs isolated, etc. You can use the material many different ways, thus building a very different product.

It's also a material like a gas, in that it fills any container it's stored in. Or perhaps a flame, as it consumes all resources you give it? Or a clay, as it's easy to work, but needs to be specially treated for it to be stable long-term... Anyway, these properties of the material need to be better understood, so builders can understand the right ways to use it. If you are building a bridge, I sure as heck hope you're using the right methods.